You sprinkle hints at earlier episodes that Simmons might be inclined to react that way. As it sits, Simmons has been exposed to super powers many times and has even very nearly died from contact with alien tech and she never leaned towards developing mutantophobia even a little bit. That makes it seems a little bit contrived that her stance now changed by events that were not really different in magnitude, but merely in results.

Seconded.

When Simmons tried to kill herself would have been a great opprtunity to show or at least have the character develop mutantphobia. Instead as long as bad stuff happened to strangers. She was good. Once someone who she was close to and had feelings for died. Then the mutantphobia suddenly is part of her character. Mind you in a world where there is people with powers both mutant and non-mutant. Targeting mutants makes little sense imo. Human Torch, Black Panther and Iceman. The first two get a free pass on racism. Iceman gets persecuted. It's not like mutants and non-mutants have a tattoo on their forehead that make them stand out. If Marvel really wanted to show racism properly then the fear would not be towards Inhumans and/or mutants. It would be against everyone and anyone who had superpowers mutant or not.

My roommate tried to let me let him play an artificer EVERY FREAKING TIME I suggest a pathfinder campaign. He staunchly refuses to look at it as anything but an extension of 3e.

To be fair the core is pretty much a extension of 3E. Their nothing really in the core that makes it stand out in a major way from 3E imo.

While their is some unbalanced material in 3.5. There is some that is. Too often as some others have said. It's either a lack of understanding. Or were never that broken. I'm in a game with a good DM. He refuses to allow 3.5. material. I kind of respect but at the same time he has never read any 3.5. material. Someone told him that the 3,.5 material was broken and unbalanced. Which one should never take as the gospel truth imo. I once had a fellow gamer insist that DR/2 was not just broken and unbalanced it was game breaking.

Not sure if these have been mentioned yet. The "everyone says the class I like sucks and I'm a horrible person and useless roleplayer for taking it" meme. Yes I have seen a occasional poster say that about a class and/or player. By and large it's very rare. Instead it seems their a super secret evil player organization hellbent on telling others that everything is badwrongfun.

The "How dare you criticize Paizo. Your a bad person for doing so. Why are you still playing Pathfinder? Why are you here? Go play other rpgs". Again like above there are some rude posters. Most of the time it's criticism. Not always constructive to be sure. Yet last time I checked this forum and many others are not echo chambers.

As for APs a lack of plot opportunities has never been the problem. It's the design of the NPCs which has and remains a issue at least at my gaming table.

Im actually liking the new Simmons: there needs to be a character on this show that just challenges the 'oh cool.. superpowered people living amongst us'. They work for an organisation which yeah does work closely with superpowered types, but can never fully trust them. You need to plan for the day the superhero might become a supervillain.

I'm not too fond of how the suddenly have Simmons being so anti-mutant/Inhuman. If there would have been some kind of buildup or a episode where it's revealed that she secretly hates people with superpowers. One bad thing happens and because it's a fellow teammate that dies all of sudden she wants to kill those that are different for their own good. The character also comes across as a hypocrite. If it was a total stranger instead of Skye chances are good that he or she would be dead. Since it's a close friend and teammate it's not the same.

That being said I like the new look for the Inhuman/mutants in the series. Characters that look strange and bizarre. Instead of the usual human looking mutants like Cyclops that are persecuted. Yet a giant 8-10 ft tall orange talking rock (The Thing) gets a free pass. Simply because his powers came from a radiation cloud in space.

Matthew Pittard wrote:

In a way i think Simmons is preparing us for the Registration Act storyline. She is obviously being put in the Registratiob camp which I dont have an issue with.

Seconded. At the very least setting things up for what may come post Secret Wars. Many fans think the event maybe a giant reset button. It remains to be seen.

Matthew Pittard wrote:

Ward has become 120 percent better as a character since he was revealed as a double agent. Better Dialogue and just better scenes. The issue with the show is unless they start portraying him more as a stock villain the sheer amount of characters on the show means his screentime will be forever limited.

I think this will not change imo. A show with too many good characters and not enough screen time. It's both the benefit and curse of a good show imo.

Most combats are actual fights. The way the Rogue class is designed. To use Sneak Attack requires the class to be within melee. Meaning they become targets of opprtunity as unless one is fighting a monster with low int. No intelligent npc or creature is simply going to stand still and allow the rogue to sneak attack with impunity.

I ran into a similar problem in 3.5. with the Ranger class. I houseruled that a Ranger with Two weapon style had access to medium armors. Light armor unless one has a build with a decent Dex is simply to easy to hit. A player refused to want to take Medium armor. Smart npcs are not going to make a straight line for the armored Fighter. Unless the Fighter is either a archtype or disguised by a illusion spell. Enemies are going to bypass them and go for lightly armored targets.

I hope your being sarcastic or joking. If this is what you truly beleive. I have a bridge or two for sale.

master_marshmallow wrote:

As for the players intent, they clearly knew what the power rating was in this particular instance.

Possibly. Without knowing the level of gaming experience or system mastery. Your assuming way too much.

master_marshmallow wrote:

My experience is that players are always asking for leeway on doing things like bypassing prerequisites, having some broken item, or playing some crazy template race without taking the level adjustments.

Gee players acting like normal players. Color me very shocked.

You think my players don't ask too use something new like a feat or archtype in a new or older book. As a player I do the same. Unless the DM allows only core. Players will ask to use non-core material. I see your point but not every player is out to screw the DM. My players if they would take a templated race with a level adjustment don't attempt to get around it. It's part of being a DM. Don't want to deal with that kind of stuff. Then don't run games. Being on both sides of the screen your not going to get much sympathy from me.

master_marshmallow wrote:

Naturally, table variance ensues, but for the most part I have yet to see players who don't try and get away with something.

I suppose i have been lucky then. Beyond a few exceptions most players I Dm for have been honest. It also helps to take a look at their sheets.

Saying players main goal is to screw the DM is not only unfair. It's untrue most of the time imo.

5) Rogues are not a bad class to play. The sneak attack damage mechanic does not help them imo. Either a Rogue has to be in melee range or do a ranged build. In melee the vanilla Rogue does not have enough AC or hp to risk staying there for too long. My games rogue die. As most intelligent opponents don't stand there and simply allow someone to stab them in vunerable areas over and over again. Not to mention being easier to hit they are prime targets. Ranged Sneak Attack helps but it too is a pain in the behind to implement imo. If they allowed Rogues to move, sneak attack in melee then move again it would help the Rogue a lot imo.

It's not helped that they made trapfinding a feat in specific AP. Or that newer classes or older classes can do the same and better. The Rogue talents are a mixed bag. Either really good. Or the usual case of too situational or simply not worth taking. Even the newer classes such as Investigator I would still not use their version of sneak attack. As again they don't have the AC or hp to take the damage.

One can say they are not a pure melee class. But when their main ability needs them to be in melee. Most of the time they can't survive long enough melee. At least not without the DM playing intelligent foes smartly. Then it is a problem. Rogues in my game as a DM don't survive for very long.

4)

While Conjurers in the hands of a player who knows what he is doing can be a pain for a DM at a table. Universalist mages unless they are being played by a beginner are even better imo. I have yet to see anyone say that a universalist mage is the worst choice. I made a mage specialized on crafting items for a 3.5 game. I was still able to contribute at the table. Whomever tells you that simply does not know what they are talking about imo

3) Power Attack is a decent feat. It helps for certain builds. I don;t think it's as good as everyone who says it is. Some lie myself take it because it's a feat tax as well as being useful.

2)
One does not have to be hyperspecialized but a certain amount of specialization is required. One can build a Fighter with low str and one with high str. The one with low str can get buy in terms of hitting stuff. The one with the high str not only hits but also does more damage. Not to mention good luck carrying all your equipment with a low str fighter. Or loot. It's the same way if I build A rogue with high dex and weapon finesse. Another with high dex and another feat. The first hits more often then the second imo.

The main problem I see is building a character that is non-optimized then wanting the character to be as as one that is optimized. Or at the very least with the right attributes. One can build a Bard with 12 Cha and one with 18 Cha. The first ones spells will fail more often than the second one. It's how the rules work. The first gives a +1 to DC to save vs spells. The second a +4.

1) Healers useless. I wonder which groups the Op is playing in. It's not that Healers are useless. It's that some players don't want to play Healbots all the time. Healing with Channeling while useful becomes somewhat less useful at higher levels. If it was a static number instead of rolling dice it would be different. A 11th level Cleric rolls 6D6 which may seem a lot. That assumes the player rolls high. If it was up to me I would allow Clerics to always heal at least a quarter to half damage on the Channel Energy rolls. At the cost of being able to use it less. Wen the Cleric heals allows at least nine or 18 hp. It's more useful imo.

The problem is it's all subjective. What's bad and broken for one table is good and not broken at another. My table we allow 3.5. material. Both players and Dms use it. As well both sides research the material first.

I'm also tired of DMs acting as if players want to pull a fast one them at every opprtunity. Some do but they are rare. Their is no super secret anti-DM player organization bent on ruining the fun for DMs. In the case of the OP I don't think the player was trying to pull a fast one. They might have simply thought what they wanted to take was not that powerful or broken. Again depending on the person.

I once had a fellow gamer on another forum attempt to convince me that DR/2 was gamebreaking and overpowered. Maybe at levels 1-5. After that it's anything but. With Paizo it's the opposite so many situational underpowered options. That are simply not worth the paper they are printed on imo. I would require a minimum six figure payment to take as a player. Craft Ooze is a good example imo.

One of the main flaws is how sneak attack damage works. It's kind of hard to move in and sneak attack and then move away. I can tell you if Rogues somehow are able to keep doing sneak attack damage with impunity in game sessions. It's the DM going out of his way to help the player imo. When I'm a DM my npcs don't stand still allowing Rogues to constantly sneak attack. Rogues are prime targets. Having less hp and AC then combat classes Rogues tend to not have lasting power. It can be done with specific builds. Vanilla Rogue is easy to take out. Their is ranged sneak attack but it's a pain to implement as well.

The situation is not helped with some very weak and situational designed Rogue talents. Their are some useful ones yet if I played a Rogue I would need to be paid and very well to take some of them. Paizo did not help things either by making trapfinding a trait in one of their APs.

Playing Mortals was very difficult in OWOD. At least in NWOD it's not only possible it does not lead to almost instant death. Besides the metaplot in OWOD. It was how each different rpg was not meant to mixed together imo. Werewolves hated each other and mages and Vampires. It was the same with Vampire and Mage. I get that the OQOD devs wanted to go for a dark feel. But still. Unless the players and Storyteller came up with good backgrounds. It was very hard to do a mixed group of characters.

As for the metaplot I don't think it was so much having a mataplot. So much as one that painted them into a corner. No matter what. No matter which core book was used the world was going to end. The players could do their damn best to stop it. To no avail. Yes I know it's possible to play without. Except the company get building and releasing new material centered and built around the metaplot. I'm just glad that they removed the GO GO Eco-Rangers element from Werewolves with NWOD.

As for Exalted and the complaint about it's power level. That I never understood. They pretty much tell your from the start. That if your expecting to play a character beginning with nothing but a rusty dagger and codpiece to look elsewhere. I don;t know about anybody else but if a game advertises itself as being fantasy where players begin as being very powerful. Well I expect it to be just that imo.

I do think it's taking it too far. If all it takes is to have dwarven features, manners and behavior to be ugly. Then all other races by that defanation should be ugly as well imo. That's one way to make sure no one plays demi-humans in a campaign.

To be fair though when it comes to non-existing games. One does not have the same time. With marriage, having kids. Social engagements for some like myself. Having a regular weekly game is sometimes not possible. I can't exactly say "forgot about your kids birthday. Show up to the game anyway". Now if it's players cancelling at the last minute. Or telling a DM that he or she has some social engagement at the last minute it's one thing. I had a gastro a few weeks back. I could have gone to the game. While also possibly infecting everyone at the table. Sometimes a child gets sick during the night. I can't tell a parent to ignore that in favor of coming to my game.

To be blunt gaming is a pastime. A hobby. As much as I want to do it on a regular basis. I simply can't put aside life and responsabilites for as hobby.

It also depends if one has a social filter. Which not everyone has imo. I have been in public where some things were better left unsaid. Such as telling me exactly what was done in the bedroom. A good example happened to myself at a dinner table. I'm having dinner with a bunch of friends. One of them asked another how the relationship with his girlfriend. His response was " I (cesnored) her brains out on a daily basis". You could just hear a pin drop. The rest of the dinner was kind of ruined with that verbal bombshell. Then he wondered why some people at the table. Espcially of the opposite sex hated his guts. It's all context. If simply hearing the word sex puts one on edge. It's not simply being a prude. It's not normal imo.

As for having sex in public you would be surprised. I think more people engage in it. My brother used to work as a waiter a a reception hall. One of the other waiters caught a couple going at it in the parking lot. The manager was kind of cruel and found all the off duty waiters he could and they all began cheering. The couple made a speedy exit out of there.

I can respect someone for not wanting to hear about certain subjects. At the same time I tend to avoid socializing with such people as well. Not because I'm a jerk. I want to be relaxed when i'm with friends.

In terms of mechanics one does get some minuses of roles with a low cha. While not making social skills impossible. It does make them harder. As well as doing something like rubbing themselves with horse manure would get huge penalties in my game. Which no amount of roleplaying can remove. Having worked and been around people with bad body odour. No amount of charm, personal charisma or skill at public speaking is going to make anyone ignore the smell. Bribing people with money maybe. If you stink your charming repartee is not going to make me forget about it.

I too am not a fan of surprise Shield twist. I do like how Cal tried to cloak himself in self righteouness by claiming to be a Inhuman. Only to be told he is anything but. Yes I know they don't refer to them like that. But I can see it happening in the future.

I agree with you. However, in situations where no roll is made, it is okay for a GM to remind a player about the ramifications of their character creation choices. Kinda like how a half-orc might be looked down upon in a conservative community, or a Druids Bear companion might frighten villagers in a small farming town...

Not everything is a roll of the dice, and a low charisma character has generally poor social skills until they put effort into overcoming it...

If you want to assume that I handwave and automatically fail people with stuff, that is your assumption, but I am explicitly saying that isn't the case. I treat my players fairly, whether it is good or bad.

If someone wants to transition from a casual conversation into making a Diplomacy or Bluff roll, I never deny them that opportunity. It isn't a contest of me vs them, that's a childish concept I left behind years ago. My roll as GM is to create a fun environment, to have my players begging me to run my game more often.

People who play low CHA characters know what they are in for, it usually results in comedic situations, especially when a CHA 5 Orc Barbarian is forced to serve as the party leader due to unforseen circumstances... :D

Well said Alex. I have noticed that a small minority of players want to build characters with low stats then either don't want negative ramifications. Roleplaying can only do so much. The lower the score the harder it should to overcome. A 5 cha is simply not going to be accepted with open arms at least at first. Eventually and with skill points and roleplaying. As well their only so many "I'm really a handsome well groomed, well spoken beautiful person cursed to be ugly" origin stories I'm willing to allow.

It also flies into the face of how we treat looks in society. Put two men or two women in a room. One attractive with no social skills. One average with good social skills. Chances are good that at least at first the one with the better looks will get more attention. Even after chances are good that he or she will have more attention. It's not to say that the average person has no chance. He or she does. It's just that we as a species focus on the more attractive first. I'm close to 41 years old and that has not changed really that much. To think that all it takes for someone to ignore appearence is how well they talk. Simply does not know how people think or act. If all I needed to get a date easily was being able to talk well. Then dating would be very easy. For better or worse as a species we want a person with both looks and intelligence.

In terms of rules a player with a low cha character is not useless. Far from it. It will take a decent investment and skill points as well as a minimum amount of roleplaying imo to succeed. Even then against a person with a high cha they still are at a disadvantage even if it's a small one. Chances are good that they character with the better score is also investing in skill points. I don't think it's fair to say that they will or should be equal at the table.

In that scenario a new game would happen, whatever game is getting played after my death, it's not my game. My game is over. Even if they just pick up and continue in the same world I was running with the same characters using my notes (the notes part is especially creepy) it's now someone elses game.

What i meant was not running the same game. Just that some in the hobby who run games. Seem to think that their irreplaceable. Without them no gaming can be had. While players outnumber DMs imo. Neither are we some sort of special rare commodity. With online gaming it's quite easy and fast if one is willing to adapt to that format to find a game. Or find players. It's quite possible to be playing with people from every corner of the planet and be in one home. Running the same game with the same notes. I could not see myself or another player running the same exact game if the DM moved on. I do agree it is kind of creepy. Kind of how like everyone suddenly has a interest in reading a dead author books. What makes them more readable then when he was alive.

Weirdo wrote:

The game mechanics should enforce these tradeoffs for you. In order to have good social skills, you need to invest in those skills whether through a high Cha stat, skill ranks, feats, or racial/class features. If you invest these resources into social skills, you should have a good skill modifier and a higher chance of success. If you do not invest in any of them you will have a low chance of success. A character with 5 Cha and no investment in Diplomacy should not expect to negotiate a treaty no matter how well their player argues, but a character with 5 Cha, 10 ranks in diplomacy, and a +2 bonus from the ancient splendor rune may be able to do so.

Can I say I like your forum name and the avatar associaited with it. I can see a goblin with that name lol.

I'm hoping that if we ever get a ultimate skills book that we get some kind of mechanic. Even then it's one of the few times I would require at least some small amount of roleplaying on the part of a player. Otherwise we will start seeing too much "I'm so ugly that I break mirrors but I auto succeed on social situations because of my skill points" type of behavior at the table imo.

Off topic to a certain extent the game is a even split in ownership. Either side is free to either kick out a player. Or for a player to walk away. To say that all it takes is the death of a DM to make a game come to a full stop is simply untrue. If the DM who passes away is a close friend. Take some time grieving then move on and find a new DM. To be blunt to some DMs and being one myself. Get over yourselves. Your not some secret special super rare commodity. Your not. If I decided for whatever reason to stop running games today. My players would try to convince me to keep running. Failing that another player in the group replaces me. Or they find a new DM. As for kicking players out with impunity I suggest any DM who does that to run games at their homes and only there. I can tell you if I get kicked out of a game. Which is being held at my place. Your sure as hell no longer going to keep running the game. Even if I have to call the police to remove a DM from my home.

As for appearence despite a few exceptional people I think we as a society place too much importance on it. Take two people one attractive and one average looking. Even if the second one is a better public speaker we are more drawn to the first. I'm not sure if it's a sad reflection on our society. But I have yet to see it happen differently. Take dating sites. Too often from friends and strangers they want the most attractive person, physically fit, rich, smart sociable. When more often than not it's usually a mix of one two or if one is lucky three. Never the whole package imo. I have a male friend who is still single. He has all the excuses in the book in the end it comes down to wanting to date someone who is clearly out of his league. Scanning some profiles sometimes I feel like telling the person is their anything else you want to add to that extensive laundry list.

In my games I allow characters to dump Cha but I do tell them that they can't take higher than a 16 in a stat. Sometimes even a 14 if they want to invest heavily in social skills. Why the penalty if your a character that has low Cha and as a player you tell me that your roleplaying being more socialable. That mean less time to focus on everything else. So if a 5 cha character does his best to roleplay being more effective in social situations. It means less time developing Str or Con or both. It's only fair. When I was working out Between work and the gym I had little time do to do much else.

Well banning stuff because of realism is a PF meme imo. I can understand and respect wanting to ban something because a person dislikes. Just say so. Using realism as excuse to not come across as being restrictive is not fooling anyone. In my current game I have a Alchemist who can toss more than one bomb at once. It's a legal build. Is it realistic no. Then again in the default setting of the game it makes perfect sense.

as for violence and sex being spoken at the gaming table. It also depends on the comfort level of the table. I don't want intimate sexual details of what is done with characters at the table. Or what players do outside of it. Neither do I want to game with 20+ year olds who hide behind fake innocence either. If simply hearing " I made love to my wife yesterday" bothers or offends that's not normal social behavior imo.

In my neck of the woods having games for 15 or was it 20 years. As a whole I almost never had a player ask that I tone down the game to make it more realistic or belivable. With Dms at most it was no guns or science fiction elements in the game like psionics. Gamers play rpgs to get away from reality imo. We live it every day of every hour. Speaking for myself I don't want to live reality in a rpg. Not unless it's one set in the modern day. Even then with some rpgs it takes away from what makes it fun. If I'm playing Call of Cthulhu pre-7E I'm not going to remove the insanity mechanic even if it bothers my players or breaks belivability. As losing one mind when facing what the Cthulhu Mythos has to offer is one of the main selling points of the game.

thejeff wrote:

If you want the gritty grounded fantasy, you've got to stick to low levels in PF.

Or Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay. Where a arrow if damage is rolled high enough can kill a character. Or Earthdawn where even a low level horror can cause a TPK.

I never have and never will exclude everyone or anyone who has a difference of opinion when it comes to D&D or any rpgs. I freely admit I will never see eye to eye with everyone or anyone on certain subjects. I simply refuse to take anyone who tries to ban something on realism in a more evolved version of pretend and make beleive. If it's a rpg that is based on realism it's one thing. Playing in a fantasy rpg where realism is the exception not the norm. That never made sense to me when I began in this hobby and never will until the day I did.

Having played in the hobby since the mid 80s with a variety of players over the years. I can count on one hand the times I have been asked by players to ban something on realism. Even then never in a fantasy rpg. In D&D or any other fantasy rpg I have never had someone ask me to make it realistic or more beleivable. If anything players or DMs banning stuff based on realism is the minority. I'm not saying it's universal. But simply because it happens at certain tables is not a indicator that it's common. How many people here can honestly say their players have asked them to reduce or remove elements from a fantasy rpg simply because of realism or because it breaks the suspension of disbelief. Even then it's not the default setting it's something that has been houseruled. You want realism in D&D then their go the arcane and divine casters. As they break the laws of reality and suspension of disbelief.

I'm not saying I would not do as my players ask. Just that it's kind of a strange thing to ask in a fantasy rpg imo. Want realism play rpgs sent in the modern era. Forgot about playing superhero rpgs because if anything they break realism or supension of disbelief even worse than a fantasy rpg. A supervillain who can make himself as big as Godzilla. Would collapse into the hole he made because of his weight. While that is realistic and belivable it's certainly not very superheroic.

When it's all said and then D&D is simply a more evolved version of a game of prented. With dice. So banning stuff in a game where one essentially throws realism out the window on general principles to me at least makes no sense. If a person wants to disallow say Leadership then just say so. I can tell you that banning stuff for realism at most tables will get you mocked at worst. A few raised eyebrows in the least.

If what makes no sense about the whole caster vs martial debate. Just because casters have access to magic they can break reality. Have a martial try and climb a smooth surface on a wall. Or leap from roof to roof easily in heavy armor suddenly breaks realism. In the end it's simply either wanting characters to remain in their roles even if it means nerfing martials. Or as it's put on these forums Martials can't have nice things.

Here are two joke feats I made at a table once during a break.

Grounded in reality

pre-requistes: Any martial class. DMs with the Martials can't have nice things feat.

If any martial class attempts to do anything other than swing a weapon. Or a combat manuever in a game session. The player must save vs DC 1000 or remain firmly grounded in reality. If by some miracle the DC is beat. Then a player can do other stuff then swing a sword or a combat maunever.

Improved Grounded in reality

pre-requistes: Any martial class. DMs with the Martials can't have nice things feat and It's not realistic feat.

The default setting is as Rynkin pointed out consistent. Meaning that many fantasy rpgs also have similar elements. Realistic not by a long shot. Are really going to refer to a made up setting of a rpg realistic. Of all the examples to use World of Synnibarr that rpg is imo designed from the ground up to be as unrealistic. It makes Rifts look realistic. I remember a character class a archer type I think. That could do about 10000 points of damage in one shot.

Let me tell you take ten experienced players of D&D. Completer strangers. Ask them two questions. Should a DM ban material because they don't want it in a game or because it's realistic. As well as ask if D&D is realistic. I would hazard to guess that half if not more would say ban the material because they don't want it in cases. Followed by D&D is not realistic. By it's nature a rpg is anything but imo. I'm immersing myself in a more involved version of pretend. It's a big warning sign to me at least that if a DM is throwing out realism as a excuse to ban something that chances are good we will not be able to game at at a table.

The chapter on magic details a imaginary magic system. It's consistent within the rules.Not in the least based on reality. Wiccans are not looking at the Pathfinder Core section on magic and going "I can use that to cast spells".

That's the funny thing. It was not even trying to prove that it was broken. Simply double standards when a person is both a DM and player. What applies to players in their games as a DM. Suddenly no longer applies to them as a player. Not only wanting the candy store. As well as the factory where the candy is produced. Made worse when they think your picking on them. If for example we both agree in a mutual dislike of Gunslingers. Why would I suddenly allow a person to take the class in my games.

As far as I'm concerned it's not being vindictive it's proper tactics. Maybe not so much the water barrels but sunder/disarm are all valid tactics against any class whose features are based on a weapon.

Except the default setting for the most part is as unrealistic as can be imo.

I have no problem with someone banning something they don't like or want in their game world. Just be upfront about it being a dislike. Trying to cloak it in the realism argument is not fooling anyone. It's hard to take someone seriously when their Ok with Dragons and every other creature or element that breaks realism in a setting. Suddenly guns are not realistic. Casters of both types can summon creatures of out of nowhere to help them in fights. Which pretty much breaks apart the whole realism argument imo.

Now if D&D was built as a realistic fantasy rpg the realism argument would imo have more merit. If I tried realism as a excuse to ban something from my table my players would laugh and ask if I was feeling well. Or if I was joking and being serious. It's like some in the hobby who are against change. Thinking that by starting the sentence by saying "it's not that I'm against change" when all that does is tell everyone in the room that your not only against change. Chances are good your in denial about it.

In a world where realism is the exception and not the norm. Then using it as a excuse to ban certain things simply is not a realistic reason to me at least. I myself am not a fan of Gunslingers as I don't like the mechanics Paizo used in designing the class. In the end to me realism is simply used as a reason to not allow something in a game. Which is fine. But don't hide behind realism as a excuse. That's what it is a excuse. My players know why I ban something. I don't use realism as excuse because they would see right through that.

Besides Dragons. Who really should be able to fly so well let alone find enough food to survive. If one uses all 3.5 material. Beholders a floating mobile laser platform. Another is Mind Flayers Somehow everyone leaves a race whose purpose it is to eat brains alone. Instead of killing them off. Their so many elements of D&D that break realism. It's almost as bad as someone insisting that D&D as a game is a realistic portrayal of medieval life. Yeah last time I read a actually text on that subject. The peasants were not running in fear from dragons, orcs, goblins etc. Or like playing a rpg set in the future. Then complaining that warp speed, Transhumanism, sentient robots, cloning, is unrealistic.

It's not to say that one can't houserule realism into their own games. Far from it. Just as long as one knows it's not the default. The default setting in D&D is as unrealistic as possible imo.

A person, who when DMing, has a direct vision on how his campaign is run. How class abilties will work, what classes are allowed. "Hey, you're in a kingdom that hates spellcasters and kills them on sight: you'll all be spellcasters!"

When he's a player in your game? Any and every option that was created must be allowed (including their house rules for things they don't like).

Agreed and seconded.

I have had similar experiences. A DM once gave the table a long and unwanted dissertation on why he disliked Gunslingers. Then tried to play one next game.

The overzealous fans who feel the need to defend the company at every turn. Over any kind of negative criticism. It's one thing to defend against insults at Paizo. It's another when as soon as one says anything negative. The inevitable "if you hate the company so much why are you here". Style of posts. This any most forums are not and never will be echo chambers imo.

The fan who complains about the rules yet don't want to see any major changes. It's rare but that kind of behavior makes no sense. Complaining about the disparity between Fighter and Wizard. Yet when a major change is mentioned. The same fans complain it would be a different game. Why complain if one does not want anything changed. Their some very confused individuals in the hobby imo.

For myself at least the main issue was on one hand we get told that unless a book meets Paizo strict standards on editing and development they won't release it. Yet on the other hand to make a quick cash grab at the Gencon that was ignored. The primary reason to rush it at gencon was to make a profit. Secondary was getting it to the fans. At the very least taking full responsability for it. I have yet to truly see a "sorry we really screwed up" from Paizo. Which along with the errata would go a long way to mend some fences with the fanbase.

To be fair it's not like Paizo was the first rpg company to rush a poorly edited book for Gencon. Yet being the only official producer of Pathfinder material. They could have delayed it if they wanted to. Either at Gencon or outside of it. The first print run would of sold out imo. The difference being that at Gencon they get the profit so much faster. Besides a few that would complain I seriously doubt that the forum or outside of it. The majority of the fans would have understood the need to fine tune the ACG for a longer period of time. Or that the first print run was a rush job with the potential to be have some errors.

Delaying the errata so that their first print run is exhausted is for better or worse a smart business decision. I may not like it but on that end it makes sense. AS a fan having to wait close to a year and still no errata on a book that practically screams for it is criminal imo. What did the devs expect. That we would be happy spending money on a book that was poorly edited. Good luck with that. While I maybe harsh I do hope that it was a learning process for the devs and they learn from it.

That being said this is not directed at Mark who has to clean up someone else mess. And who I appreciate all the hard work he has done on the errata.

I kind of called it when it came to Emma. When Fitz mentioned her new anti-Inhuman stance as to why he kept Skye condition a secret. She of course mentions that it's not the same because Skye is a friend. I guess they want to really go for the hypocrite angle. Kill off all the other Inhumans for being different and dangerous. Just not the ones who are my friends or family.

I never really told another player how to build a character. Offer advice maybe sometimes too blunt. If I get asked my honest opinion on a build and if I think it sucks I will give my honest opinion.

I let players build what they want, Except at the same time if it's not as effective at the table. Then they and they alone are responisble for it imo. If a player wants to build a more combat oriented Bard putting a 12 or even 10 in Charisma. Then expect spells tp fail more often they will succeed imo. A 12 cha vs say a 18 it's a three point difference in DC. Not too much of a difference at mid to high levels. At low levels spells are easy to save against. As long as the player is fine with that as a outcome.

That's my main issue players want to build a character any which way they want. Then when it's not as effective as everyone else. Or they build a skill bases character in a combat oriented game. I don't want to hear any complaints about a lack of effectiveness at the table. Both as a DM and player. Expically if when given advice it's ignored.

Witn myself it's not so much Drizzt clones. So much wanting to play a Drow and immediately acquire social acceptence. I was in a game where the player accused the DM of being racist. Simply because the player expected at first level to not face anti-Drow racism. Assuming that all it took was "I'm like Drizzt I'm a good Drow" in a Forgotten Realms campaign. With the player being afro-american. Suffice to say he was never allowed back into the game. And really accusing a gay person of racism.

Playing a Kender like Tasselhoff and doing a piss poor job of it. Bad enough the race as a whole is written as a bunch of kleptomaniacs who are given a free pass for doing it. Players seem to think that robbing people blind simply because of being a Kender is acceptable. Yeah not so much. In all my years in the hobby. I can count on one hand the number of times I have seen a Kender roleplayed properl.y

I don't see nothing wrong about occasionally bragging about my character at the table. If through a combination of good rolls and roleplaying I kick butt at the table during session. Why would I be silent. When people have great productive days in the real world. They tell people about it. As long as one is not always bragging about it.

Not to mention the system rewards a well made character vs one that is not imo. Or to put it another way one can make a Fighter wit low Str and Con. Just don;t expect him to hit as well and last as long as one that has a high Str and Con. One can roleplay some of it. Yet roleplaying can't solve it all. No amount of roleplaying is going to make a character with low Str suddenly acquire to ability lift and carry more equipment.

It can be done with other rpgs like Hero, Gurps and Fate. Not with D&D imo. It was also kind of hard to brag about characters in 2E. Unless one roleplayed a class differently a Fighter was a Fighter was a Fighter. At least with 3E and after one could add more customization in terms of feats, traits, and archtypes. Out of core in 2E everyone got the exact same thing in a class. The only class that could really custom was the Thief imo. With others only if a DM allowed kits from other sources could one get more variety imo. Bragging about stats was the only thing one could do in 2E as dumping stats really hurt characters. Have a low Con good luck coming back from the dead. Dex gave bonuses to AC against Missile weapons.

I would tend to say that if ahead of time in the campaign blurb you listed something as excluded, you more or less DID already politely say no, no?

In this case I'm assuming that nothing was said ahead of time by either the DM. If a DM says no Gunslingers no exceptions then a player asks for one. It's the player being a bit of a dick and ignoring the DM restrictions. If no restrictions or exceptions are given. With friction or a falling out happening simply because of asking the DM to play a Gunslinger then it's the DM being a bit of a dick. Mind you it's all in how both parties behave. If both sides are respectful and polite and a friction or a falling out still happens. Then either one or the other or both are simply not meant to play rpgs together or maybe even be friends. If one side or both are equally rude and disrespectful to each other then nothing will save that relationship. Both at the gaming table and probably away from it.

If all it takes to ruin a friendship is a DM politely and respectfully saying no. Or a player who does the same while asking to use material from another product other than core. Then quite frankly that type of person is simply not worth being a friend of imo. Now if the DM/player is being rude it's one thing. Simply asking or refusing for something and it causes friction or a falling out. No thanks I don't need such toxic and immature people in my life. EVen if it means no longer playing any rpgs. Life is too short.

I'm fine with the sudden shift, memorax. She's definitely not thinking clearly, as she was a lot closer to Trip as she would like to admit. His death is weighing heavily upon her, and she's wanting to lash out at the people she believes is responsible for his death - Raina and Cal. I'm pretty sure the Emma from S1E1 would be horrified to hear her say those things, but I don't think she's ready to start carrying around "Die Mutie Inhuman Scum" signs just yet.

I still would have preferred a gradual shift. While she is under alot of emptional strain because of Trip death. She also does come off as a hypocrite imo. It's ok when it happens to someone else. When it happens to her then all of sudden it's not. I admit to being somewhat biased as I hated and still hate the clumsy, unrealistic, heavy handed way Marvel still keeps trying to make mutant racism current in their comics.

Misroi wrote:

It's going to be bad when she finds out that Skye's not human any longer, but worse when she finds out Fitz covered for her.

True but something tells me that she might already know that Fitz is covering for Skye. If look at Emma face when he lied for Skye it kind of had a strange look to it imo.

I would have preferred a gradual personality change for Emma. Having negative reaction towards superhumans since the beginning of the show. It just feels kind of forced imo. At the very least if she wanted to contain them. Instead not only those she want to capture them she wants to kill them as well for their own "good". What's next she's going to put Skye out of her misery.

Exactly it's not a Paizo problem. They are a business. Which is to sell new product to make more money to pay their bills. So why blame them. I can see it being the fault of a player who when told by a DM "core and only core". Keeps buying new material and tries to get a dM to use it. I like buying rpg sourcebooks. I try not to force any DM to use the new material. I may ask but never demand the material be used.

Please let's be honest a DM having to refuse a player requests for allowing new material while annoying. Is simply not that big of a thing. I'm a DM I barely break a sweat whenever a player asks to include a new class from a book. I can refuse or allow it.

Again there is a difference. How does being accused of being " control freak railroading GM if you don't allow everything". Have to do with Paizo releasing new material. I like buy new books as I'm something of a completist at heart. When I'm a player I'm not going to assume that every DM will allow me to take anything and everything that I want. Same thing when as a DM I'm free to allow or disallow what is in the books as well. As long as both parties are respectful in the process.

I keep hearing drawbacks. What drawbacks exactly. Fans of the game want new material some do not. Those that do are free to keep buying. Those that are against are in no way shape or form forced to do. I like junk food. I have eaten every single product at my nearest Mcdonald. Not all at once and over a period of many years. I never felt the urge to sample the entire menu at once simply because they offered it while adding new items to the menu.

What's a extremely very minor problem is being made out to be a huge issue and to be blunt quite frankly it's not. I bought many books from 2E D&D. I never felt the urge nor was ever forced to use them all.

The issue never was about what a DM can or cannot allow at the table. It's that somehow people interested in a rpg. Are somehow either forced at gunpoint to buy the new material. As well as being forced to use the new material in their games. Which is not the case. Simply not using the material or even buying it is the solution. A imppossible solution to the Bloat crowd

A player who shows up and does nothing at the table. No passion for the character or the game. Minimal roleplaying if even that. The character had a npc love interest who he ignored. To me it makes me go why bother sometimes.

Well it was a legit tactic and one I would have used as well. Eventually though it becomes harder and harder to plan ahead imo. As with a smart group they can bypass many of the encounters. As a DM one also has to be careful at high levels as well. Bad rolls on the part of the group and it's too easy to get a TPK imo. I also recommend heavily altering many of the npcs in the APS. Some are poorly designed and built around the group being new to the hobby. A experienced group will easily defeat many of the npcs in the APs imo.

I'm also a DM as well as a player. While I have not read every AP. I have read some in case I wanted to run them. As a example I decided not to run Kingmaker yet ended up a player in a campaign. I was upfront with the DM about my knowledge. He was ok with it and I can do a good job of pretending I never read the AP. So if your like me chances are good that if you use the APs then you may also be playing in one as well.

At higher levels it's really easy to kill off pcs if the DM is not careful. In my last session the BBEG who is a 14th level caster. Hit the group with a prismatic spray. A couple of bad saves and I ended up right or wrong fudging the results. Ironically the Fighter rolled two 20s on his saves. But if I took the results. One dead caster. Two petrified characters. A dead familiar. Another both planeshifted and insane. I ended up keeping only two of the characters petrified. That's with a spell from the premade npc list for the BBEG. Not something I added in.